Conclusion

     The Breton question is not only universal because of its history, even its most recent : it is in keeping with the context of a world in crisis about modernity founded on universal truth and over deliberation about the future. France, one of the countries in the world which has gone furthest down the road of denial of traditions and minorities, has today discovered that its model of republican integration is up a blind alley :

     "The republican model", writes Alain Touraine, "no longer pushes the different parts of France towards a future chosen by all in the name of the values of liberty, equality and solidarity : it defends the benefits already acquired, and above all the outrageous power of public and sometimes union administrators who uphold the most centralised categories in the name of general rules..."

     Now, it is interesting to note that in Brittany, despite the forced transfer of culture that this model of integration has brought about over the centuries, there is still a special ethos. For one thing, the Breton language is still spoken by some hundreds of thousands of people, even if its domain is diminishing rapidly. For another, a not inconsiderable active minority is producing a revived and contemporary culture (linguistic, musical, choreographic, etc.). Above all, the majority of Bretons are now proud of their differences, even if these are more based at present on mental image and constant creation than on traditions from time immemorial. Finally, the Breton ethos is expressed peacefully, with no trace of hatred or the desire to split away : the Bretons are not tensed up about their identity.

     This is not the case of a part of the French intelligentsia who find it hard to accept that their culture no longer stands as a universal model. Confronted by the Anglo-Saxon world, they retear into their shells to defend their cultural "identity", which they describe as "out of the ordinary". Then again, confronted by other cultures within their frontiers, they are in a state of apoplexy : "Passions", writes Michel Wieviorka, "run explosively high among the intellectuals the minute they hear words like "cultural difference", "multiculturalism", "minorities"..." France is, he adds "a country that dreads the idea [of an upsurge of individual identities], and which, more generally speaking, feels its place in world culture threatened...". To stem the rise of these dangers, - whether it be populism, the withdrawal of communities into themselves, or unbounded neoliberalism, - it would be appropriate to show some honesty : it is not true that Europe and France have to choose between universalism and a return to tribalism. In Alain Touraine's words, "multiculturalism is not the enemy of European universalism ; it's the other side of the coin".

     Would it not be better, rather than fight tooth and nail to defend one's identity, to put up the case for the respect of otherness [alterity] ? This is not just a case of using another word : as we have seen, identity is just a figment of the imagination ; now, any society founded on a figment of the imagination resorts to lying. This is, besides, what Renan wrote :

     "Forgetting, and I would also say historical oversight, are essential factors in the creation of a nation, and it is thus that progress in historical research is often a danger to nationality. Historical investigation does indeed highlight the acts of violence which took place at the start of all political groups, even those that have turned out to be the most beneficial."

     Otherness, however is no figment. Far from it, writes Paul Ricoeur, it is "inherent to the very concept of human pluralism". Otherness is "that which is other than oneself. [...] Here, alterity is more a connection or relationship than a concept in the true sense of the word." It is well known that the struggles for national liberation founded on the principle of identity are not, alas, liberating until and unless they succeed. Then, in accordance with their guiding principle (defending the identity, i.e. promoting the "Us"), they start to oppress the internal "Them". It is, of course, not certain that a combat pursued in the name of otherness would not itself produce such domination phenomena. Nevertheless they would be out of line with the principle of otherness. Acting and arguing according to the principles of otherness does, however, imply political solutions that are not state-based. Well, is this not precisely what our contemporary context demands ? In Terre-Patrie (1) Edgar Morin shows that everywhere in the world, there exists today a real awareness of our share in the fate of the planet. We can only be congratulated. If France and the other states who claim to be nations accepted - let us just try and imagine the possibility for a moment - to relax a little and accord real collective rights to their minorities ; or better still, if supranational bodies - such as Europe - managed to exercise political sovereignty and recognised such rights based on the principles of otherness, is it not possible that the minorities would be content - like, for example Spanish Catalonia - to enjoy their rights to the full, without necessarily attempting to fight the States or to create new States ? It would lead, clearly, to a form of federalism, so contrary to French practice. France, however, writes Jean-Louis Quermonne, "cannot remain blind to the changes that are taking place within its frontiers. It will soon be unable to find what it needs in the devolution tool-box to come up with an answer."

     The Bretons, who do not even call themselves autonomists, certainly do not seem to be a threat to the French state today. They do, though, expect more respect for their cultural separateness and more economic privileges. Ismael Kadaré writes "peoples never hope in vain, as those hope who sit dreaming on their doorstep. When a people hopes for something, it is already moulding that hope."

(1) Terre-Patrie = "Earth-Fatherland".